"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
Oh, I see your problem ... you memorized a mnemonic and now think that everything in the
rules depends on the pecking order. Well surprise! There is no pecking order! There
happens to be one rule where several relationships are described. These standon/giveway
relationships have been dubbed the "pecking order" but only apply in certain situations -
In particular, they only apply in conditions of normal visibility.

You are correct that towboats are not mentioned, and thus, in normal visibility towboats
have no priority unless the declare themselves a RAM, often referred to as an "unruly
tow."

Exactly as I said. Towboats ain't doodly-squat unless they declare
themselves a RAM and show the lights and shapes of a RAM.
Otherwise a towboat is just another motorboat and is at the
bottom of the pecking order. A sailboat is the stand-on vessel
and a towboat is the give-way vessel with respect to the pecking
order.


BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the
pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that.

A NUC is the highest vessel in the pecking order. In a situation where
a NUC and a RAM are interacting other than an overtaking situation
the NUC is the stand-on vessel and the RAM is the give-way vessel.


However, the pecking order has no bearing whatsoever in Restricted Visibility. There are
different rules and different signals. In this case, the "sound signals in restricted
visibility" often called fog signals, are defined in rule 35. You even quoted it (below)
and noted that it included "vessel engaged in towing other vessels" in the list of vessel
that must use "long-short-short" signals in the fog - hampered vessels according to
Farwell. What could be clearer than that?

This is where you are incorrect. There is a pecking order in
restricted visibility. All vessels that sound the one prolonged/
two short blasts signal are not to be impeded by any vessel
that sounds the one prolonged or two prolonged signal. Rule
8 states this very clearly. It just so happens that Rule 35 gives
a vessel towing the mandate to sound the signal of a RAM
so it becomes a defacto RAM in restricted visibility even
though it may not be a RAM in in-sight situations. This measure
was put in place because of the danger of hawsers and vessels
being towed far behind the towboat that would present a danger
to a vessel who can not see what is going on like it can is
in-sight situations. It does not, in any way, detract from the
meaning of the pecking order.

The fact remains that all vessels in a fog that hear the fog
signal of one prolonged/two short blasts must not impede
and must take action to avoid a close quarters situation.

It this isn't a pecking order in a fog then I'm a Pumpernickle
loaf.

Here, allow me to diagram the restricted visibility pecking order.

1) NUC, RAM (includes towing), CBD, Fishing (includes trawing,
long-lining, seinging etc.), Sailing,

2) Power boat


I hope this helps

S.Simon

Jeff Morris wrote:


BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the
pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that.


I think that although you are technically correct, you will find the
courts will find otherwise.
A NUC is unable to maneuver, while a RAM is "only" restricted in it's
ability to maneuver ....both vessels are deemed unable to "keep out of
the way".
Also, if you note rule 18, NUC always precedes RAM in the list which is
an indication of it's status.

otn

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
snip what we agree on


BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the
pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that.

A NUC is the highest vessel in the pecking order. In a situation where
a NUC and a RAM are interacting other than an overtaking situation
the NUC is the stand-on vessel and the RAM is the give-way vessel.


Absolutely incorrect, Neal. Don't you ever read the rules? There is no rule that tells a
RAM that it should keep out of the way of a NUC. Consider: a RAM could be a dredge or a
cable layer, or other work vessel completely unable to move or deviate from a course; a
NUC may have a minor steering problem. If a risk of collision occurs between the two,
they simply have to figure out the best course of action. For the purpose of the pecking
order, they are at the same level.



However, the pecking order has no bearing whatsoever in Restricted Visibility. There
are
different rules and different signals. In this case, the "sound signals in restricted
visibility" often called fog signals, are defined in rule 35. You even quoted it
(below)
and noted that it included "vessel engaged in towing other vessels" in the list of
vessel
that must use "long-short-short" signals in the fog - hampered vessels according to
Farwell. What could be clearer than that?

This is where you are incorrect. There is a pecking order in
restricted visibility. All vessels that sound the one prolonged/
two short blasts signal are not to be impeded by any vessel
that sounds the one prolonged or two prolonged signal. Rule
8 states this very clearly. It just so happens that Rule 35 gives
a vessel towing the mandate to sound the signal of a RAM
so it becomes a defacto RAM in restricted visibility even
though it may not be a RAM in in-sight situations.

Now you're just playing games. The rule says tow vessels sound the signal. It doesn't
say tow vessels become RAMs. There is no reason why the tow sudden has "restricted
ability to maneuver." You're just making up nonsense to avoid admitting your error. Be a
man, Neal, not a little girl!


This measure
was put in place because of the danger of hawsers and vessels
being towed far behind the towboat that would present a danger
to a vessel who can not see what is going on like it can is
in-sight situations. It does not, in any way, detract from the
meaning of the pecking order.


Yes, the hawser and tow is a reason why the towboat should be approached with caution. It
does not mean the tow bas become a RAM.


The fact remains that all vessels in a fog that hear the fog
signal of one prolonged/two short blasts must not impede

Nope. It doesn't say that anywhere. You're just making it up. The other little girls
didn't let you play in their games, did they?


and must take action to avoid a close quarters situation.


All vessels have that obligation. Not just vessels other than yours.


It this isn't a pecking order in a fog then I'm a Pumpernickle
loaf.

You said it, not I.


Here, allow me to diagram the restricted visibility pecking order.

1) NUC, RAM (includes towing), CBD, Fishing (includes trawing,
long-lining, seinging etc.), Sailing,

2) Power boat


That is the division (except for your incredibly embarrassing blunder about the towboat)
for the sound signals. It in no way creates standon/giveway relationships.


I hope this helps


I'm sure the judge will find this quite interesting.

Regarding "searoom". My Webster "New World Dictionary of the American
Language" defines:

searoom, enough open space for maneuvering a ship

Says nothing about being at sea..... and as we also know, Neal has too
little experience in the Maritime world to know how to apply "impede" to
the Rules.

otn

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message

Why is that the professional captains, the standard textbook, and the authors of the

rule

all agree on its meaning, and yet Neal stands alone in his opinion?



Hey, Jeff, I happen to be a professional captain.


Is that true? Hoiw much money have you made using your license?


And, I just happen
to be a greater authority on the English language than some smuck
named Farwell. Does this Farwell even have a lowly bachelor's
degree? I doubt it.



Farwell died a number of years ago, he was the author of the first edition in 1941. The
authors of the 6th edition that I've been quoting are Frank E. Basset, Commander, US Navy,
US Naval Academy, '58, served as chairman of the Navigation Department of the Naval
Academy; and Richard A. Smith, Commander, Royal Navy, graduate of the Royal Naval College
in Dartmouth and the Royal Naval College in Greenwich, also served as chairman of the
Navigation Department of the Naval Academy, and at the time of publication, commanding
officer of HMS Achilles.

I think its fair to say they know what they're talking about.


'Shall not impede' means what it says. It is as much a part of the
English language as apple pie. Nobody attempts to come up with
his own definition of 'apple pie' yet they presume to come up with
a definition of 'shall not impede' that is contrary to the dictionary
definition. Could it be that those who do so do so out of ignorance?



Absolutely wrong. Anyone creating formal rules must define their terms and use them
precisely. Even the IMO, the body that formulated the ColRegs, commented on how "shall no
impede" was a very specific term, used in a limited sense, and that in particular, rule 8f
was added to clarify the meaning of "shall not impede" in rules 9 and 10.

You, on the other hand, have refused to acknowledge common usage, as when you claimed the
"sea room" could only apply on the high seas, even though Bowditch defines it in terms of
being able to maneuver without risk of collision. The ColRegs use it, of course, in the
same context.

So what's next? Will you claim you know more than Bowditch?




Yes, sir, it is very likely the case. Any time some Rube attempts to
force his own lame definitions which do not agree with dictionary
definitions upon certain words and terms it is because the Rube is
uneducated and ignorant. It casts whatever the Rube says in a
dubious light. That's a fact. Another fact is those who would give
any credit at all to said Rube are ignorant of the English language
just as is the Rube.



Have you just assumed a new name, Rube?

BG See a lot of "oh chit how do I bail out of this mess" BS goin here

Simple Simon wrote:

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...

Oh, I see your problem ... you memorized a mnemonic and now think that everything in the
rules depends on the pecking order. Well surprise! There is no pecking order! There
happens to be one rule where several relationships are described. These standon/giveway
relationships have been dubbed the "pecking order" but only apply in certain situations -
In particular, they only apply in conditions of normal visibility.

You are correct that towboats are not mentioned, and thus, in normal visibility towboats
have no priority unless the declare themselves a RAM, often referred to as an "unruly
tow."


Exactly as I said. Towboats ain't doodly-squat unless they declare
themselves a RAM and show the lights and shapes of a RAM.
Otherwise a towboat is just another motorboat and is at the
bottom of the pecking order. A sailboat is the stand-on vessel
and a towboat is the give-way vessel with respect to the pecking
order.

We've all said that, but your limited intelligence has been unable to
understand it.


BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a NUC is higher on the
pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says that.


A NUC is the highest vessel in the pecking order. In a situation where
a NUC and a RAM are interacting other than an overtaking situation
the NUC is the stand-on vessel and the RAM is the give-way vessel.



However, the pecking order has no bearing whatsoever in Restricted Visibility. There are
different rules and different signals. In this case, the "sound signals in restricted
visibility" often called fog signals, are defined in rule 35. You even quoted it (below)
and noted that it included "vessel engaged in towing other vessels" in the list of vessel
that must use "long-short-short" signals in the fog - hampered vessels according to
Farwell. What could be clearer than that?


This is where you are incorrect. There is a pecking order in
restricted visibility. All vessels that sound the one prolonged/
two short blasts signal are not to be impeded by any vessel
that sounds the one prolonged or two prolonged signal. Rule
8 states this very clearly.

There's a portion of rule 8 you typically always omit ....."if the
circumstance of the case admit"
In fog, because, (assuming no radar and/or radios) you don't have a clue
as to range, heading, speed, relative motion, or type of vessel, then
the circumstances of the case DON'T admit, which puts much of rule 8 on
the backburner and sends you to Rule 19.

It just so happens that Rule 35 gives
a vessel towing the mandate to sound the signal of a RAM
so it becomes a defacto RAM in restricted visibility even
though it may not be a RAM in in-sight situations. This measure
was put in place because of the danger of hawsers and vessels
being towed far behind the towboat that would present a danger
to a vessel who can not see what is going on like it can is
in-sight situations. It does not, in any way, detract from the
meaning of the pecking order.

ROFL I love the way you can twist a simple paragraph into meaning what
you wish it to mean.
Be that as it may, Rule 35 does NOT give a towing vessel a mandate to
sound the signal of a RAM vessel .... Rule 35, STATES, that a towing
vessel engage in towing SHALL sound that signal, whether it is RAM or
NOT...... Once again proving no pecking order in fog. There is no
wording, hint of wording, legal precedence, etc., that you can find or
manufacture that shows otherwise.

The fact remains that all vessels in a fog that hear the fog
signal of one prolonged/two short blasts must not impede
and must take action to avoid a close quarters situation.

Totally wrong. This, once again shows a total lack of reading
comprehension on your part.
You cannot take action if you don't know what action to take or if a
close quarters situation exist ( Neal's lack of experience in fog,
precludes his understanding this fact)

It this isn't a pecking order in a fog then I'm a Pumpernickle
loaf.

You're a moldy Pumpernickle loaf

Here, allow me to diagram the restricted visibility pecking order.

1) NUC, RAM (includes towing), CBD, Fishing (includes trawing,
long-lining, seinging etc.), Sailing,

2) Power boat


I hope this helps

Let me know when you take your seat on the IMO committee that creates
and modifies Rules of the ROAD. Until then, your imaginary "foggy
pecking order" will remain lost in the fog.


otn

Subject: Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 08/05/2003 14:37 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

As usual, that idiot Shen44 is saying I 'disappeared'. Hey, can't
a fellow go sailing without the peanut gallery engaging in wishful
thinking? Of course Shen44 wishes his nemesis would just go
away but that is not to be his fate, and yours either, Jeff Morris!

ROFL Sailing, my stern tube packing!!!
You sequestered youself below to try and devise some response (typically lame)
to get yourself out of your latest mess

But, it is you, Jeff , whom I am addressing here.


Fact: there is no such classification in the pecking order of
a towboat. A towboat has no status in and of itself. A vessel
towing is just another motor vessel until and unless it is
restricted in its ability to maneuver. Need I remind you of
the pecking order which represents ALL classifications
of vessels.

New NUC
Reels RAM
Catch CBD
Fish Fishing
So Sailing
Purchase Power
Some Sailplane

Now, tell me, Mr. Morris, which of the above does a towboat
fit into?

Huh? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Oh! You admit that a towboat fits nowhere in the pecking order?

It fits into the "power" section of the pecking order.... which typically you
don't seem to understand.


Well, good! Because that's a fact. A towboat has no special status
in the pecking order.

Question of semantics. It's special status is a "motorboat".


Until and unless a towboat is restricted in its ability to maneuver it
remains just another motorboat. Once it becomes restricted in its
ability to maneuver it then becomes a RAM.

Which we all know, but what does that have to do with the question at hand?

I have to wonder just what about the pecking order do you, Shen44
and otnmbrd not understand?

We understand it and realize it can't exist in fog for all the reasons you
state.

otnmbrd wrote:
Interesting points, and an obvious reason not to think on too narrow a
plain, as does our friend Neal

Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, you state the common argument. However, there is nothing that
says that a NUC is
completely out of control, nor is there anything that says that a RAM
is only slightly
restricted.


It does state that a NUC is "unable" This is one that I think may
require an individual "case" from the courts to unravel, as it's not
necessarily "cut and dried".


Several years ago the new Boston Harbor Tunnel was lowered in 300 foot
sections to the
bottom of a 100 foot trench, and placed within inches of the pervious
section. The
vessels doing this work were clearly RAMs, and during the final stages
would have been
completely unable to move without risking the lives of the divers below.


The possibility here, is to change from RAM to NUC to "tied to the
dock". At a point they were RAM, but at a point this may have changed.

Actually, in retrospect, they'd be hard pressed to ever be able to show
NUC .... but someone could BG say they were anchored at some point.
Main point being, that there are possibilities and as long as nothing
happened, no harm no foul, but if something did, this is one that would
have to settle in court.

A small twin

engine vessel, with limited power in one engine, might declare itself
a NUC because it
would have difficulty turning in one direction. In the case, the RAMs
have priority over
the NUC.


Would disagree with this. He would be limited in speed, but not
maneuverability, if he could use rudders and both engines at reduced
speed or astern, and would be just a motor boat with a problem, not NUC.

In either case, you still bring up an interesting point, and I don't
have a solid answer, for or against.

otn


http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/twt-bui.htm

I have been told that this issue has been formally raised a number of
times and the CG and
IMO have refused to clarify it any further than to say that the
vessels involved will have
to figure it out, the same way the two RAMs or two NUCs would have to
do their best to
resolve the situation.



"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...


Jeff Morris wrote:


BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a
NUC is higher on the
pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says
that.


I think that although you are technically correct, you will find the
courts will find otherwise.
A NUC is unable to maneuver, while a RAM is "only" restricted in it's
ability to maneuver ....both vessels are deemed unable to "keep out of
the way".
Also, if you note rule 18, NUC always precedes RAM in the list which is
an indication of it's status.

otn

bject: Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
From: otnmbrd
Date: 08/05/2003 19:57 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et



otnmbrd wrote:
Interesting points, and an obvious reason not to think on too narrow a
plain, as does our friend Neal

Jeff Morris wrote:

Yes, you state the common argument. However, there is nothing that
says that a NUC is
completely out of control, nor is there anything that says that a RAM
is only slightly
restricted.


It does state that a NUC is "unable" This is one that I think may
require an individual "case" from the courts to unravel, as it's not
necessarily "cut and dried".


Several years ago the new Boston Harbor Tunnel was lowered in 300 foot
sections to the
bottom of a 100 foot trench, and placed within inches of the pervious
section. The
vessels doing this work were clearly RAMs, and during the final stages
would have been
completely unable to move without risking the lives of the divers below.


The possibility here, is to change from RAM to NUC to "tied to the
dock". At a point they were RAM, but at a point this may have changed.

Actually, in retrospect, they'd be hard pressed to ever be able to show
NUC .... but someone could BG say they were anchored at some point.
Main point being, that there are possibilities and as long as nothing
happened, no harm no foul, but if something did, this is one that would
have to settle in court.

A small twin

engine vessel, with limited power in one engine, might declare itself
a NUC because it
would have difficulty turning in one direction. In the case, the RAMs
have priority over
the NUC.


Would disagree with this. He would be limited in speed, but not
maneuverability, if he could use rudders and both engines at reduced
speed or astern, and would be just a motor boat with a problem, not NUC.

In either case, you still bring up an interesting point, and I don't
have a solid answer, for or against.

otn


http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/twt-bui.htm

I have been told that this issue has been formally raised a number of
times and the CG and
IMO have refused to clarify it any further than to say that the
vessels involved will have
to figure it out, the same way the two RAMs or two NUCs would have to
do their best to
resolve the situation.



"otnmbrd" Gdog Gdog Gdog Gdog G wrote in message
k.net...


Jeff Morris wrote:


BTW, you imply here, and state explicitly on you web site, that a
NUC is higher on the
pecking order than a RAM. There is nothing in the rules that says
that.


I think that although you are technically correct, you will find the
courts will find otherwise.
A NUC is unable to maneuver, while a RAM is "only" restricted in it's
ability to maneuver ....both vessels are deemed unable to "keep out of
the way".
Also, if you note rule 18, NUC always precedes RAM in the list which is
an indication of it's status.

otn







At sea, the "normal" RAM should be able to maneuver around a NUC, whereas a
"normal" NUC won't be able to maneuver around a RAM.

Inshore, If a RAM is working a submerged cable, etc., with a NUC drifting down
on him, the NUC should probably be able to anchor and avoid the situation.

All this wording is leading to Rule 2.
As it can be seen, you can come up with some interesting possibilities, but
most can be worked around or solved with good old Rule 2 common sense .... the
NUC that can't steer can power astern/fwd, possibly at the last moment to avoid
the RAM working the tunnel sections, or anchor, and if all else fails and
everyone has honestly tried to alleviate the situation...... Oh Chit, call the
P&I Club.

Shen

Subject: Simon's superior understanding
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 08/05/2003 14:50 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...

Why is that the professional captains, the standard textbook, and the
authors of the rule
all agree on its meaning, and yet Neal stands alone in his opinion?



Hey, Jeff, I happen to be a professional captain. And, I just happen
to be a greater authority on the English language than some smuck
named Farwell. Does this Farwell even have a lowly bachelor's
degree? I doubt it.

ROFLMAO, Thanks Neal, I needed that......professional captain..... when's the
last time you work professionally, as a captain on the water?
Once or twice as a paid crew doesn't make you a professional..... and lately,
your spelling has been atrocious (smuck?) so I wouldn't brag too much on that
so-called English degree.

Shen

Subject: Ellen MacArthur, Tthe Reluctant Heroine
From: "Simple Simon"
Date: 08/05/2003 14:40 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I am right and you are wrong. It will take much more than
saying I am 'hilarious to prove your point. I responded by
listing the Rules that back up my point. You respond with
obfuscation.

That makes you ineffective and laughable.

ROFL you responded with the Rules which back up MY points, but attempted to use
them to obfuscate, and as per usual, it didn't woik, which makes you and your
argument useless and hilarious.

Shen